terradrivefandomcom-20200214-history
TerraDrive Universe:Do not disrupt the TerraDrive Universe to illustrate a point
State your point; don't prove it experimentally Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented. This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create proof that the rule does not work in the TerraDrive Universe itself. In the past, many contributors have found their stress levels rising, particularly when an issue important to them has been handled unfairly in their view. The contributor may point out inconsistencies, perhaps citing other cases that have been handled differently. And the contributor may postulate: "What if everyone did that?" In this situation, it is tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of . For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they oppose. These activities are generally disruptive: i.e., they require the vast majority of objective editors to clean up or revert the "proof." In general, such edits are strongly opposed by those who believe them to be ineffective tools of persuasion. Many readers consider such techniques spiteful, as passers-by are caught in the crossfire of edits that are not made in good faith, and which are designed to provoke outrage and opposition. As a general rule, points are best expressed directly in discussion, without irony or subterfuge. Direct statements are the best way to garner respect, agreement and consensus. Gaming the system Gaming the system is the use of TerraDrive Universe rules to thwart TerraDrive Universe policy. In many cases, gaming the system is a form of disruption. Doing this over a prolonged period of time leads to sanctions, and, in extreme cases, a permanent ban. Other forms of gaming the system can involve (arguing the word rather than spirit of policy) and/or mischaracterizing other editors' conduct in order to make them seem unreasonable. See Wikipedia:Gaming the system Refusal to 'get the point' In some cases, bad-faith editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been decided against by consensus, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and disruptive editing upon the erroneous statement in order to make a point. Wikipedia is based upon collaborative, good faith editing, and consensus. When a stance passes the point or reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant - it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point. Examples *'''If somebody suggests that the TerraDrive Universe should become a majority-rule democratic community... **'do' point out that it is entirely possible for users to create and vote more than once. **'don't' create seven sock puppets and have them all agree with you. *'If' someone creates an article on what you believe to be a silly topic, and the community disagrees with your assessment on Category:Articles for deletion (AfD)... **'do' make your case clearly on AfD, pointing to examples of articles that would be allowable under the rules the community is applying. **'don't' create an article on an entirely silly topic just to get it listed on AfD. *'If' someone lists one of your favourite articles on AfD and calls it silly, and you believe that there are hundreds of sillier articles... **'do' state your case on AfD in favour of the article. **'don't' list hundreds of other articles on AfD in one day to try to save it. *'If' someone deletes information about something you consider to be important from an article, calling it unimportant... **'do' argue on the article's talk page for the person's inclusion, pointing out that other information about people is included in the article. **'don't' delete all the information about everything similar from the article, calling it unimportant. *'If' you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline... **'do' set up a discussion page and try to establish consensus **'don't' push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong, or nominate the existing rule for deletion *'If' you're upset someone didn't follow process in making a change... **'do' find out why they did it and attempt to convince them otherwise **'don't' reverse an arguably good change for no reason other than "out of process" *'If' you think that this list of examples has become excessively long and boring... **'do' suggest that half of them may be deleted without loss for the understanding of the guideline or article **'don't' add 42 more cases, however plausible they are Egregious disruption of any kind is blockable by any moderator. See also * Wikipedia:Disruptive editing * Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose